Kateeva, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 23, 2021

2020002751 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/368,290 12/02/2016 Conor F. Madigan KAT-15-0400 5228 156349 7590 04/23/2021 Hauptman Ham, LLP (Kateeva, Inc.) 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/23/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): Docketing@ipfirm.com ip@kateeva.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CONOR F. MADIGAN and CHRISTOPHER R. HAUF Appeal 2020-002751 Application 15/368,290 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–15. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kateeva, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002751 Application 15/368,290 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method of fabricating a layer of an electronic device. See, e.g., claim 1; Spec. ¶ 2. The layer is formed by firing droplets onto a substrate such that the fired droplets spread to form a void free, continuous layer of desired thickness. Spec. ¶ 59. The claims require the use of respective nozzles adapted to use alternative droplet sizes and a step of selecting a largest one of the alternate droplet sizes that satisfies a criterion. Claim 1. The criterion is “that the droplet size is sufficiently small to produce the layer following processing so as to have a thickness that is no greater than the desired thickness.” Claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with the limitation at issue italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of fabricating a layer of an electronic device on a substrate surface, the method comprising: selecting a volume of a liquid per unit area of the substrate surface; receiving a desired thickness for the layer; assigning nozzle firing decisions to respective nozzles of a print head in the printer to cause the printer to deposit discrete droplets, so as to produce the desired thickness of the layer, wherein assigning the nozzle firing decisions comprises scaling the volume according to the desired thickness; using the printer to print according to the assigned nozzle firing decisions; and processing a continuous liquid coat produced by the discrete droplets so as to form the layer therefrom; wherein respective nozzles of the print head are adapted to use alternative droplet sizes to perform printing, wherein the method further comprises selecting a largest one of the Appeal 2020-002751 Application 15/368,290 3 alternate droplet sizes which satisfies a criterion that the droplet size is sufficiently small to produce the layer following processing so as to have a thickness that is no greater than the desired thickness, wherein selecting the volume comprises identifying a number of droplets for the selected droplet size corresponding to an amount necessary to produce a continuous liquid coat on the substrate surface in a manner not having voids within the unit area of the substrate surface, and wherein printing is performed using the selected droplet size. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Yoshida US 2007/0182770 A1 Aug. 9, 2007 Harjee US 2015/0099059 A1 Apr. 9, 2015 Vronsky US 2015/0171368 A1 June 18, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, and 8–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vronsky in combination with Yoshida. Final Act. 3. Claims 3 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vronsky in combination with Yoshida and Harjee. Final Act. 10.2 2 The Examiner lists claim 4 as rejected, but claim 4 has been canceled. Appeal 2020-002751 Application 15/368,290 4 OPINION Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to combine the teachings of Vronsky and Yoshida to arrive at the selection step of claim 1. The Examiner acknowledges that Vronsky fails to teach the selection step and turns to Yoshida for a teaching of “a method of controlling ink jet recording apparatus whereby a droplet size of small, medium and large [are] utilized to form a layer and the largest droplet size [is] utilized to form the sizes I [sic] the desired gaps to produce a layer.” Final Act. 6, citing Yoshida ¶ 48. Based on this teaching, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to have chosen the largest size/volume to produce a layer in any of the gaps thereon so as to produce the desired layer thickness as evidenced by Yoshida.” Id. As pointed out by Appellant, Yoshida does not teach or suggest selecting droplet size based on the thickness of the layer to be produced by the droplets. Appeal Br. 7–8. Instead, Yoshida deposits ink on paper and is concerned with preventing the printer head from contacting the paper due to cockling (phenomena in which the paper surface undulates). Yoshida ¶ 7. To prevent cockling, Yoshida increases the gap between the printer head and paper when printing on paper prone to cockling. Yoshida ¶ 42. Although Yoshida selects different droplet sizes, that is based on the print resolution (high, medium, or low) desired by the user. Yoshida ¶¶ 35, 44. Yoshida is not concerned with the thickness of the ink layer, only the thickness and type of paper substrate as it relates to cockling and the print head gap required to prevent cockling. Paragraph 48 of Yoshida, which is cited by the Examiner, discusses setting droplet size to the largest value of 10 pl when the gap Appeal 2020-002751 Application 15/368,290 5 between the printer head and paper is 2 mm. This gap-based correlation is also not related to the thickness of the ink layer. The Examiner has failed to provide the necessary evidence or technical reasoning supporting the finding of a suggestion within Yoshida for selecting the droplet size of Vronsky based on the criteria recited in claim 1. The Examiner’s application of Harjee to reject claims 3 and 5–7 does not cure the deficiency. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–15 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 8–15 103 Vronsky, Yoshida 1, 2, 8–15 3–7 103 Vronsky, Yoshida, Harjee 3, 5–7 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–15 REVERSED